War Must Not Be Humanity's Natural State Of Existence

On My Mind

April 16, 2006|By MARIO D. MAZZARELLA

On April 7, Victor D. Hanson of the Hoover Institution and National Review addressed a large and receptive audience at Christopher Newport University. His topic was titled "War in a Classical Context," but he spent most of his time discussing our own era. His argument proceeded from an interesting point of view and included many interesting points. And yet I was left uneasy. Allow me some random reflections on what he had to say.

Hanson's premise was based on the well-known dictum that only the dead have seen the end of war. From this he seemed to proceed to the conclusion that human nature is intrinsically violent, that this quality necessarily issues forth in that organized violence we term war, and that an intelligent policy a) recognizes that fact and b) prepares to meet it with superior force. In sum, war and not peace is the natural state of humanity.

In its own terms, this is a logical argument. But is it correct that all human communities regard each other in such Hobbesian terms? I believe that even Hanson would concede that modern democracies seem to have little inclination to fall upon each other, no matter how deep their political or economic differences. Even states that are not democracies seem to have limits on how much violence they are willing to perpetrate or tolerate. The late and unlamented Soviet Union proved quite amenable to deterrence, even at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. After a brief and unhappy foray into Vietnam in 1979, China decided it did not wish to push the dispute further, despite its overwhelming preponderance of power.

Considering people as individuals, psychological studies have shown that most soldiers exposed to extended combat exhibit symptoms of severe post-traumatic stress disorder. The less than 5 percent that do not are at least borderline psychotics.

History (my subject) and current events show that there are states and groups prepared to use violence to achieve their ends. Psychology, religion and philosophy also attest that there exist in each of us tendencies to both good and bad. But it is a far cry from these empirical facts to a universal, natural and perpetual inclination to violence that we must be eternally prepared to meet.

Facing the challenges of the current world, Hanson seems to have one answer, which proceeds logically from his premise: When threatened, hit back or, even, hit before one is hit. There is in this a frightening confidence in the efficacy of violence.

The unstated premise that validates this tactic is that the U.S. military is so powerful that we can get away with just about anything. This conviction has fueled the neoconservative drive to remake the world more to our liking. Put into practice, this has resulted in the destruction of the governments and armies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, it has failed to counter the ideas and resentments that led to the threats we faced (or said we faced) in those lands. So al-Qaida and its spawn continue to bedevil us in both places. Worse, our ideological enemies have found unconventional means to bedevil us, from improvised bombs to preaching against our occupation of Muslim lands. There is no doubt that we can kill elephants like Saddam Hussein's army. The problem is that it's harder to kill swarms of angry wasps like the jihadis in Iraq.

Hanson, in his speech (and in a recent article in National Review), now calmly meditates about airstrikes to neutralize a potential Iranian nuclear threat. Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker reports active discussions in our military and government of possible nuclear strikes to destroy these facilities (loudly decried by President Bush as "wild speculation.")

Hanson believes that, if it comes to an American strike, most Europeans and Arabs will privately be relieved, though they will publicly criticize the United States. Once again, we hear the kind of rosy scenario that led us into the current Iraq imbroglio. A recent Atlantic Monthly article considered a possible strike on Iran and found it plagued with possible disasters and pitfalls.

With our current alliances in disarray and our national reputation at the lowest point globally since the Vietnam War, do we really want to take on another ill-considered adventure that could compound our problems immeasurably?

Hanson warned that sometimes there are no good choices: only bad and worse. That is true -- but it is irresponsible to launch an attack without the most careful consideration of the long-term consequences. We faced the Soviet Union for 40 years without resorting to war. At the end of that time, our enemy dissolved.

The Prussian soldier and military writer Karl von Clausewitz famously termed war the continuation of politics by other means. If war won't solve the problem, then it's lousy politics and shouldn't be used. There are some things you can't fix with a sledgehammer. With wisdom and prudence, we can probably outwait Iran, whose population is the most pro-American in the Middle East.

Hanson's vision is of a nightmare world where we must stand, sword in hand, ready to slay whatever dragons arise -- or may arise -- from now until Judgment Day. Would not a better, more intelligent policy be one that engaged the wealth and resources of the developed world to assist poor nations to rise from their poverty and to achieve a better life for their peoples, a better, more peaceful world for all?

A better, more peaceful world: Now there's a vision that should inspire men and women of good will more than the view of that dark pit of perpetual war that has been the classical curse of humanity from ancient times to now. *

Mazzarella is a professor of history at Christopher Newport University in Newport News. Send e-mail to mazz@cnu.edu.